Ethics: Is Euthanasia Morally Right or Wrong?

The moral dilemma can be summed up as this: "To be or not to be"

• The "Right-to-Die" group believe that this right to choose death is guaranteed by the Constitution. Euthanasia, some believe, is just another way of "suicide", and the law cannot control "suicide," unlike before when the law would discourage individuals from committing suicide by blocking the inheritance of property to their heirs .
• Legalising euthanasia would be like legalising abortion; the law permits a choice, but doesn't force anyone to make that choice.
• "Death with dignity"; they believe that the quality of life is most important and that death is more preferable to a life of prolonged suffering.
• It would relieve the financial burdens of already grief-stricken family members who must see their loved ones in a state where they either are suffering or will never come back.
• Some individuals believe that the "Judeo-Christian beliefs" permit euthanasia because although choosing death--most of the time--is wrong, some would consider being helplessly dependent on machinese to carry out basic functions as not life. As Joseph Edelheit says in his essay "Assisted Suicide Is Not Contrary to Judeo-Christian Beliefs", "Were Moses speaking today, I pray he would charge with a more relevant admonition--'Choose life...unless it is a machine!' " (Edelheit 45)
• To keep alive someone who wishes to die is wasting resources; instead, care/attention should be lavished on those who could actually be saved.

• Our society "bas[es] its moral "views primarily on the fundamental values of Judaism and Christianity", which preaches that life is priceless and gifted to them by the "Creator" (a.k.a. God), and therefore only the Creator/God has the right to end it. To kill oneself is defying the sanctity of life.
• The legalisation of euthanasia would pressure the "terminally ill" to end their lives, because high medical expenses place a heavy financial burden on their family's shoulders. Giving people the right to choose should not also pressure people who still want to live to die.
• If a patient ended his/her life conveniently right before a cure could be found, then it would be a waste of life. There's many hypotethical "what ifs" and situations where a cure may be found in a patient's "natural" lifetime" had s/he not decided to be euthanized.
• Some believe there is a fine line between "ending treatment" and "ending life." Death would have been the natural course had "treatment" not interfered (and sometimes may happen even with treatment), so it may be considered OK, but ending a life is a "direct intrustion with the sole intent to end that person's life." (Otremba 22)
• With some measure of understanding of the human psyche, when do we judge a patient's plea for euthanasia to be due to psychological imbalance? What will be the rule in deciding whether the patient is in the right "frame of mind" and granting the patient's plea is appropriate?
• Even though less and less doctors are asked to swear the "Hippocratic Oath" after graduation, the Oath demands that "to please no one will [the doctor] prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause [the patient's] death."
• Governments could potentially abuse this “privilege” for eugenic purposes, like the Nazis. For example, should infants born with birth defects or physical/psychological disorders be "allowed" to live? The "pro-life" supporters argue that if euthanasia were legalised that such cruel atrocities may occur.